By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
No, what you said was you weren't sure it was "that" relevant....so maybe just a little bit? I'll stick my neck out here and say it wasn’t and isn't an Islamist/antisemite insurrection. Try disagreeing a bit more with those whose team you appear to bat for, it's liberating believe me!
Edit Glasgow's ability to uppie posts when he can't see what you're replying to is admirable don't you think...
[Post edited 21 Oct 20:08]
Thankfully he’s got poor old blooters on call to wade in with outraged indignation within 30 seconds of any criticism landing…
Sometimes I giggle about the frothing lunatic who’s put me on ignore and now has to constantly log out to see what I’ve said. Beneath that counterfeit persona lurks the same pitifully desperate egomaniac.
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest you’ve actually still got far more wisdom you’re itching to impart and have no inclination whatsoever to abandon it at just the 4 months.
Surely the other suspects that aren’t THE usual suspects can offer you some sort of incentive and counselling to prolong your stay?
[Post edited 21 Oct 21:31]
Or just organise a righty bum fest!
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Ah, the usual accusation of disingenuousness, followed by an explanation of what I really meant and which political team I apparently belong to.
Trust me, I know what I think rather better than you do. “I'm not sure it was that relevant” means precisely what it says, not whatever hidden position you seem determined to attribute to me.
And thank you for the advice about independent thought. There's a certain irony in being lectured about it by someone who's already decided what I think.
I don't have a team here. I discuss issues openly with all but about 4 posters.
I think I've been posting for 4 months, but I think I'm done.
Whilst we clearly come at things from different perspectives, I enjoy our interactions so my thoughts are best summarised by KC and the Sunshine Gang.
[Post edited 21 Oct 21:50]
1
France is lost (n/t) on 21:48 - Oct 21 with 1446 views
Ah, the usual accusation of disingenuousness, followed by an explanation of what I really meant and which political team I apparently belong to.
Trust me, I know what I think rather better than you do. “I'm not sure it was that relevant” means precisely what it says, not whatever hidden position you seem determined to attribute to me.
And thank you for the advice about independent thought. There's a certain irony in being lectured about it by someone who's already decided what I think.
I don't have a team here. I discuss issues openly with all but about 4 posters.
I think I've been posting for 4 months, but I think I'm done.
I know you're a big fan of Billy Bragg and there is a lyric in the following song that reflects my approach to dealing with people. It's something that I think everyone on TWTD should strive for, even if its only agreeing amicably to disagree.
Ah, the usual accusation of disingenuousness, followed by an explanation of what I really meant and which political team I apparently belong to.
Trust me, I know what I think rather better than you do. “I'm not sure it was that relevant” means precisely what it says, not whatever hidden position you seem determined to attribute to me.
And thank you for the advice about independent thought. There's a certain irony in being lectured about it by someone who's already decided what I think.
I don't have a team here. I discuss issues openly with all but about 4 posters.
I think I've been posting for 4 months, but I think I'm done.
Hey come on don’t leave over a bit of stick from the LBF/LAS.
They are frothing at the mouth in anticipation at you leaving.
I don't think the article or I were excusing the violence or confining things to France, only pointing out that things seem much more difficult for the younger generation everywhere, and certainly in contrast to when I was growing up.
But of course, the reaction will vary from country to country, and France has a long history of violent protest.
I can't access the article but may be able to access the paper itself on Press Reader.
[Post edited 21 Oct 16:24]
And when it comes to this country, it is not just NEETS.
From the FT.
"Class of 2024 more likely to be unemployed
Graduates who finished first degrees in 2024 are more likely to be unemployed, unpaid or working part-time than previous cohorts, but AI has not been the biggest factor, according to official data published today.
The share of graduates in full-time work after 15 months has fallen from 59.6 per cent for the 2020-21 cohort — who began job hunting at the height of a post-Covid surge in hiring — to 54.8 per cent for the 2023-24 cohort, according to a report by Prospects, part of the non-profit education data agency Jisc.
Graduate unemployment rose from 5 per cent to 6.8 per cent over the same period, while part-time employment rose from 10.4 per cent to 13.1 per cent, and the share doing unpaid work also increased. Among those who found work, the share in professional roles fell from 75.5 per cent to 70.9 per cent.
AI, Ball said, might be eroding opportunities in a few “niches”. Coders, management consultants and graphic designers — whose work might be more easily automated — were among the occupations where graduate hiring fell most.
He acknowledged that rapid advances in AI capabilities were adding to the wider sense of caution. In conversations with small businesses, especially, “a lot of people are saying . . . we don’t want to recruit a bunch of people we have to lay off in 18 months because it turns out models can do that job”, he said."
This thread has touched on the worst British PM, and I would argue that there is a good case for David Cameron.
That view could be said to be backed up by what Andy Haldane, the former chief economist at the Bank of England, said in the FT a couple of days ago.
"At the time of austerity, UK government debt was not only far smaller than it is today, but the cost of servicing it was lower than at any time in human history. Remarkably, the country’s long-term borrowing costs were negative in inflation-adjusted terms for protracted periods. There will probably never have been a better time for public investment.
Yet funding was cut and a £2tn investment gap opened up relative to international competitors, stunting growth. Veering right was wrong."
By the way, I've got myself an annual subscription to the digital edition of the FT for what seems to me the remarkably low price of £159, so move over the Guardian.!
This thread has touched on the worst British PM, and I would argue that there is a good case for David Cameron.
That view could be said to be backed up by what Andy Haldane, the former chief economist at the Bank of England, said in the FT a couple of days ago.
"At the time of austerity, UK government debt was not only far smaller than it is today, but the cost of servicing it was lower than at any time in human history. Remarkably, the country’s long-term borrowing costs were negative in inflation-adjusted terms for protracted periods. There will probably never have been a better time for public investment.
Yet funding was cut and a £2tn investment gap opened up relative to international competitors, stunting growth. Veering right was wrong."
By the way, I've got myself an annual subscription to the digital edition of the FT for what seems to me the remarkably low price of £159, so move over the Guardian.!
[Post edited 22 Oct 15:54]
Debt was on a massive accelerator due to the 2008 crisis and built in spending promises already committed to. Rising debt is a hard thing to slow down and needed some remedial action. After all, Debt v GBP effectively doubled in 3 years thanks to borrowing and the recession. Net borrowing had risen to 150billion per annum. However they sat on the Austerity train for too long though, for sure in trying to bring borrowing down. And whatever was achieved in borrowing reduction was blown out of the water by covid and it's aftermath anyway. Cameron's main error was misreading the country on Brexit and that will be his main legacy in decades to come.
Debt was on a massive accelerator due to the 2008 crisis and built in spending promises already committed to. Rising debt is a hard thing to slow down and needed some remedial action. After all, Debt v GBP effectively doubled in 3 years thanks to borrowing and the recession. Net borrowing had risen to 150billion per annum. However they sat on the Austerity train for too long though, for sure in trying to bring borrowing down. And whatever was achieved in borrowing reduction was blown out of the water by covid and it's aftermath anyway. Cameron's main error was misreading the country on Brexit and that will be his main legacy in decades to come.
The Tories did really well to get that narrative across (and austerity fitted with their desire to shrink the state) but I would rather rely on what Andy Haldane said.
This thread has touched on the worst British PM, and I would argue that there is a good case for David Cameron.
That view could be said to be backed up by what Andy Haldane, the former chief economist at the Bank of England, said in the FT a couple of days ago.
"At the time of austerity, UK government debt was not only far smaller than it is today, but the cost of servicing it was lower than at any time in human history. Remarkably, the country’s long-term borrowing costs were negative in inflation-adjusted terms for protracted periods. There will probably never have been a better time for public investment.
Yet funding was cut and a £2tn investment gap opened up relative to international competitors, stunting growth. Veering right was wrong."
By the way, I've got myself an annual subscription to the digital edition of the FT for what seems to me the remarkably low price of £159, so move over the Guardian.!
[Post edited 22 Oct 15:54]
borrowing for investment is always better than borrowing for consumption. but we were still borrowing significantly throughout that period (see below). it is also quite hard to reconcile that consistent level of borrowing with the term 'austerity'.
if we had borrowed for investment in place of the borrowing for consumption that we actually did then we'd be in a better place. absolutely. but, if we had simply borrowed for investment on top of what we were already borrowing, even with negative interest rates for part of the time, the cost of servicing that accumulated debt now would be even more crushing. you can't just think about the interest rate on the day you borrow. the investment gap partly reflects that we were prioritising state financed consumption over investment and using growing debt to fund the former.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
The Tories did really well to get that narrative across (and austerity fitted with their desire to shrink the state) but I would rather rely on what Andy Haldane said.
[Post edited 22 Oct 11:53]
that's good to know, I expect you also agree with Andy Haldane saying that he endorsed Badenoch's plan to cut business and employment taxes in order to drive economic growth, 2 days ago. He is a guy that can be left when it suits and right when it also suits, my brother knows him
borrowing for investment is always better than borrowing for consumption. but we were still borrowing significantly throughout that period (see below). it is also quite hard to reconcile that consistent level of borrowing with the term 'austerity'.
if we had borrowed for investment in place of the borrowing for consumption that we actually did then we'd be in a better place. absolutely. but, if we had simply borrowed for investment on top of what we were already borrowing, even with negative interest rates for part of the time, the cost of servicing that accumulated debt now would be even more crushing. you can't just think about the interest rate on the day you borrow. the investment gap partly reflects that we were prioritising state financed consumption over investment and using growing debt to fund the former.
And it is such a sensitive thing to manage, irrespective of the party managing it. National debt today stands at £3tn, roughly speaking its around 1 x annual GDP, or £43k for every person in the UK. The challenge to getting that down isn't one of how to pay back 3 trillion £ of debt, we don't need to, its more about how we can a) service it (£100bn+ annually in interest) and b) slow down or prevent further borrowing, while investing in services, the economy, and increasing GDP. Not easy.
If the economic output increases over the next 20 years to the same tune it has over the last 20 (which includes a deep recession and Covid), holding that debt flat at £3tn would mean its 'only' 46% of GDP by 2046. Is it realistic that national debt relative to GDP could ever be that low again?
Is it possible to successfully run the country without a deficit? Is it even achievable to run a deficit but increase borrowing at a slower rate than GDP growth, and reduce the debt % to GDP?
And it is such a sensitive thing to manage, irrespective of the party managing it. National debt today stands at £3tn, roughly speaking its around 1 x annual GDP, or £43k for every person in the UK. The challenge to getting that down isn't one of how to pay back 3 trillion £ of debt, we don't need to, its more about how we can a) service it (£100bn+ annually in interest) and b) slow down or prevent further borrowing, while investing in services, the economy, and increasing GDP. Not easy.
If the economic output increases over the next 20 years to the same tune it has over the last 20 (which includes a deep recession and Covid), holding that debt flat at £3tn would mean its 'only' 46% of GDP by 2046. Is it realistic that national debt relative to GDP could ever be that low again?
Is it possible to successfully run the country without a deficit? Is it even achievable to run a deficit but increase borrowing at a slower rate than GDP growth, and reduce the debt % to GDP?
your first para is spot on - given we are at the sharp point in terms of your a) and b) it's going to be a very interesting budget.
borrowing consistent with gdp growth and borrowing for investment can both be very good and sustainable. our problem is that we have consistently borrowed for consumption and we have had next to no gdp growth. if the figures i quoted had funded productive investment we'd be in a good place now. but they didn't. which is the very difficult trade off we now face.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
your first para is spot on - given we are at the sharp point in terms of your a) and b) it's going to be a very interesting budget.
borrowing consistent with gdp growth and borrowing for investment can both be very good and sustainable. our problem is that we have consistently borrowed for consumption and we have had next to no gdp growth. if the figures i quoted had funded productive investment we'd be in a good place now. but they didn't. which is the very difficult trade off we now face.
Don't disagree at all.
Pretty wild to think National debt was 36% of GDP as recently as 2007. Of course the deep global recession of 2008 and Covid in a 12 year period have been hugely impactful. Not sure how feasible it is any time soon to reverse our debt to anything close to lets say 60% of GDP, for arguments sake.
Would rely on reasonably strong (3.5%) economic growth over the next 15 years or so, putting GDP at £5tn by 2040, and not increasing borrowing. I don't doubt there's a reasonable level of waste in current public spending tbh, whether there's enough to balance the books, not operate with a deficit, and still invest sufficiently in public services I don't know. Guess not, otherwise we would be doing it already.
that's good to know, I expect you also agree with Andy Haldane saying that he endorsed Badenoch's plan to cut business and employment taxes in order to drive economic growth, 2 days ago. He is a guy that can be left when it suits and right when it also suits, my brother knows him
I saw that too and I think he was overegging the pudding when he talked about Burnham representing a return to 70s-style socialism.
Burnham may talk the talk but he won't walk the walk.
borrowing for investment is always better than borrowing for consumption. but we were still borrowing significantly throughout that period (see below). it is also quite hard to reconcile that consistent level of borrowing with the term 'austerity'.
if we had borrowed for investment in place of the borrowing for consumption that we actually did then we'd be in a better place. absolutely. but, if we had simply borrowed for investment on top of what we were already borrowing, even with negative interest rates for part of the time, the cost of servicing that accumulated debt now would be even more crushing. you can't just think about the interest rate on the day you borrow. the investment gap partly reflects that we were prioritising state financed consumption over investment and using growing debt to fund the former.
Anyway, other countries in western Europe have faced all that we have, but do not seem in the main to have ended up with all areas of the public sector in varying degrees of chaos.
As It is, I am not an economist but a friend of mine who had studied economics in the 80s thought at the outset that the approach of the coalition government was the wrong one.
Anyway, other countries in western Europe have faced all that we have, but do not seem in the main to have ended up with all areas of the public sector in varying degrees of chaos.
As It is, I am not an economist but a friend of mine who had studied economics in the 80s thought at the outset that the approach of the coalition government was the wrong one.
really?? have you heard of france?
lots of economists think lots of different things. they're famous for it.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
